Re: RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc

["Daniel de Kok" <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
<ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
>  > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
>  > <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > >  I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
>  > >  signature that's applied to the package itself.
>  >
>  > A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how
>  > that could be licensed differently.
>
>  And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or
>  interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright
>  law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow.

That's a flawed analogy. Virtually, all jurisdictions require work to
be original to qualify for copyright. Painting a landscape requires
effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption
software doesn't.

Anyway, let's not continue with *this* slippery slope. The next guy
will proclaim that downloading software and recompressing it with
bzip2 constitutes a new work ;).

-- Daniel
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos